Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:04:21 +0100 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Chip Camden <sterling@camdensoftware.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Backtick versus $() Message-ID: <20110225000421.cd452210.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <20110224225834.GG1983@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> References: <loom.20110224T214917-136@post.gmane.org> <AANLkTik88V5Bb2BWM0Kpv3rWfek9_%2BgjqmEt6UbsVjpS@mail.gmail.com> <loom.20110224T220407-811@post.gmane.org> <AANLkTikAB--0Hrw76cbdzgfmeJMPt_N7isaw%2Byn_-QMn@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.BSM.4.64L.1102242135020.1945@herc.mirbsd.org> <20110224213322.GA13089@guilt.hydra> <loom.20110224T225518-308@post.gmane.org> <20110224221057.GA13262@guilt.hydra> <20110224223924.GF1983@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> <4D66DEED.9010105@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20110224225834.GG1983@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:58:34 -0800, Chip Camden <sterling@camdensoftware.com> wrote: > Thanks for that -- though I'll go with: > > set -o vi > > TYVM. I didn't know /bin/sh supported those modes. It's hardly known as /bin/sh is _not_ used for interactive comunication regularly, as it's basically the system's standard scripting shell. It's interactive use is reserved for emergencies, operations performed in single user mode to bring back the system to perform normally. Still, it *CAN* be used for this porpose quite well when configured properly - if needed. I could also say: If you're spending too much time in sh interactive sessions to think about it, you're probably doing something wrong. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110225000421.cd452210.freebsd>